Israel claims Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar has been killed

Israel says Sinwar was killed on Wednesday in southern Gaza. PM Netanyahu says score is ‘settled’.

Israel says its forces have killed Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar in Gaza.

The Israeli military said on Thursday that Sinwar was killed on Wednesday in southern Gaza.

“After completing the process of identifying the body, it can be confirmed that Yahya Sinwar was eliminated,” the Israeli military said.

“The dozens of operations carried out by the [Israeli military] and ISA [Shin Bet, Israel’s domestic security service,] over the last year and in recent weeks in the area where he was eliminated restricted Yahya Sinwar’s operational movement as he was pursued by the forces and led to his elimination.”

Hamas has not commented on the Israeli claims. Israel has been conducting a war on Gaza since October last year, killing more than 42,000 Palestinians, the vast majority of them civilians. That followed Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel, in which 1,139 people were killed.

The Israeli army and police carried out DNA checks to confirm Sinwar’s identity after it said its forces in Gaza had killed three people.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to take the plaudits for Sinwar’s killing but added that it did not mean the war on Gaza was over.

“Today we have settled the score. Today evil has been dealt a blow, but our task has still not been completed,” Netanyahu said in a recorded video statement. “To the dear hostage families, I say: This is an important moment in the war. We will continue full force until all your loved ones, our loved ones, are home.”

Nearly 250 people were taken captive from Israel during the October 7, 2023, attacks. About half have been released, and about 70 are believed to still be held in Gaza.

Assassinations

Sinwar, 62, was one of the masterminds behind the October 7 attacks on Israel and has been a prime target for Israel since then.

Chosen as Hamas’s leader in Gaza in 2017, he had previously been held in an Israeli prison for 22 years before being released as part of a prisoner swap in 2011.

Disciplined and determined, he was focused on fighting Israel.

Hind Hassan, a journalist who was one of the last people to interview Sinwar in 2021, said he told her Palestinians were expected to be “perfect victims, and that’s something that they cannot be”.

His claimed death comes months after the July assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’s political leader, in Tehran. Israel is believed to have been behind the killing.

Sinwar had been chosen as Hamas’s overall leader after Haniyeh’s killing.

Israel also claimed to have killed Hamas’s military chief, Mohammed Deif, in August although that has not been confirmed by the Palestinian group.

Outside Gaza, an Israeli attack in Beirut on September 27 killed Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Lebanese group Hezbollah, an ally of Hamas that has been locked in a conflict with Israel since October 8, 2023, saying its attacks were being conducted in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza.

The war on Gaza has sparked a regional conflict, including groups such as the Houthis in Yemen, and even Iran, which conducted an unprecedented direct missile attack on Israel on October 1 in retaliation for the killings of Nasrallah and Haniyeh.

An Israeli attack on Iran is expected and could potentially drag in the United States, which has sent a missile defence system and soldiers to Israel.

Families of captives waiting

People in Israel have celebrated the claims that Sinwar is dead, and family members of captives said they hoped a deal to secure the release of their relatives could now be secured.

“This is a critical, time-sensitive development as it relates to the hostages. Their lives are in great danger now more than ever,” said Orna Neutra, whose son Omer is being held in Gaza. “We’re calling on the Israeli government and the US administration to act swiftly and do whatever is needed to reach a deal with the captors.”

Israel has refused to agree a captive release deal that would also see a ceasefire and the release of Palestinian prisoners despite attempts by several countries to secure an agreement and Hamas’s stated receptiveness.

Instead, Netanyahu has called for a total victory over Hamas and has promised not to end the war until that happens.

In Gaza, many don’t believe that Sinwar’s killing will bring forward an end to the war.

“Sinwar’s killing will not stop the war because it is a war on the Palestinian cause and Palestinian existence,” said Salah Musleh, living in central Gaza. “Israel assassinated Hamas leaders Ismail Haniyeh, [deputy chairman of the political bureau] Saleh al-Arouri, and today Sinwar, but the war has not stopped to this day. We are proud of this end to Sinwar.”

By Al Jazeera Staff 17 Oct 2024  

Published On 17 Oct 2024

Additional reporting by Maram Humaid in Deir el-Balah, Gaza.

Published On 17 Oct 202417 Oct 2024

Making of a new constitution

13 Oct 2024 | By Maneesha Dullewe The Morning

Despite the new Government’s stated plans for a new constitution, it remains to be seen whether and how such a constitution will come to pass. 

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, responding to inquiries from the Maha Sangha recently, said that he hoped to introduce a new constitution, emphasising that it would only be done following discussions and a referendum. 

He further pointed out that previous governments had implemented constitutional amendments without public consensus, pledging instead to introduce an amendment that would meet the expectations of the people. 

‘A real possibility’ 

Given this backdrop, addressing the likelihood of a new constitution, constitutional expert Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne, PC told The Sunday Morning that there was a real possibility of constitutional reform in the offing. 

“The National People’s Power (NPP) is now in power and it is likely to get at least a working majority in Parliament. The Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), which is likely to be the main party in the opposition, has also committed itself to several important constitutional changes like the abolition of the executive presidency, stronger devolution, institutions at the village level to empower the people – which is a demand of the ‘Aragalaya,’ and the widening of the fundamental rights chapter.

“Whether it will be a new constitution or a wide-ranging amendment, we don’t know – that’s a matter for the Government. But because the two main parties agree on many of these issues, I think there is a real possibility of having meaningful constitutional reform.”

However, he noted that any such change “must be effected preferably within the first year of Parliament, not later,” since any later implementation could lead to complications. 

“The danger is that if the amendment of the new constitution comes later in the term of Parliament, other issues will come up. It won’t be a referendum on the constitutional amendment or the new constitution but a referendum on the Government’s performance,” he explained.  

Accordingly, he expressed his view that should the Government opt for a referendum, it must be held as early as possible, “so that the chances of getting it approved by the people are higher”.

Legally, in order to have a new constitution, consensus among the main political parties is required. “A two-third majority in Parliament is essential, meaning a broad consensus across parties is necessary,” Dr. Wickramaratne noted. 

“Enough and more drafts are available on these issues because constitutional reform has been attempted successfully and unsuccessfully for the last so many years. It is a question of political parties agreeing to the changes.”

He further stressed that a new constitution was a necessity, saying: “The present Constitution has failed and it is based on the executive presidency. If we abolish the executive presidency, ideally, we should have a new constitution, since for abolition, you need to go before people at a referendum in any case. Therefore, the best option is to have a new constitution.”

However, if this is not possible for any reason, he advocated having “the broadest possible constitutional reform” instead. 

NPP/Govt. pledges 

On the campaign trail, Dissanayake said the NPP planned to “rapidly conclude the process that began in 2015-2019” and draft a new constitution based on equality and democracy and where everyone could participate in governance as one country. The draft constitution will seek to “devolve power politically and administratively to every Local Government body, district, and province, and guarantee the political participation of every ethnicity”. 

Speaking at the first-ever Cabinet press briefing of the new Government on 1 October, Minister Vijitha Herath said that a draft constitution would be presented to the public for a referendum once the new government has been formed.  

In a Centre for Policy Alternatives ‘Voice of Citizens’ publication contributing to the dialogue on drafting a new constitution, published in the aftermath of the ‘Aragalaya’ of 2022, now Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya had said: “We think a new constitution is absolutely essential. We have come to the limits of this current Constitution. 

“We have severe problems with the existing Constitution. We critique the Constitution, especially the executive presidential system; we think this can no longer be tinkered with and a new constitution is required.”

Tamil political perspective

Meanwhile, former MP and Thamil Makkal Thesiya Kuttani (TMTK) Leader C.V. Wigneswaran told The Sunday Morning that the new Government had yet to call upon them for any input on matters concerning a new constitution. 

He however stressed that Tamil-speaking people in Sri Lanka would welcome any new constitution under certain conditions. 

“If they accept the fact that the Tamil-speaking people are the majority in the north and east, with a history of their own, and therefore are entitled to be considered as a special unit of the population of this country, we will certainly welcome the constitution that will be put forward. We will give all possible support with regard to that.”

He explained: “We have a right to be recognised as an individual nation and we, as a nation, joining the Sinhala-speaking nation, can formulate whatever possible constitution that would be acceptable. Tamil-speaking people don’t consider ourselves minorities because we are the majority in the north and east.”

Stressing that the Tamil-speaking people of the north and east had a history of over 3,000 years as original inhabitants of this country, he said: “What I would ask the Government is to accept the fact that under Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a group of people having certain qualifications are entitled to nationhood. We have all those qualifications; we have a language of our own, area of our own, and culture of our own.”

13th Amendment and devolution 

With issues surrounding the devolution of power being some of the most contentious in Sri Lankan constitutional reform, the approach towards the 13th Amendment becomes significant. 

According to Dr. Wickramaratne, there are a number of issues with the 13th Amendment given its flawed nature. “Through experience, we have seen that it allows the centre to take back with the left hand what has been given with the right hand. Therefore, clear-cut provisions are needed in regard to devolution so that devolution is meaningful.”

Commenting on the constitutional model that Tamil parties would support, Wigneswaran said: “Our leaders have always been asking for a federal constitution. In fact, my party asked for a confederal constitution so that there won’t be many problems between the two segments of the country. 

“We are all for being able to have the right of self-determination for ourselves within one country. In that sense, it (the new constitution) should have the characteristics of a federal constitution. But if the Government is concerned regarding federalism being a much-maligned concept among the Sinhalese people, we could work out something by which the right of self-determination is ensured with regard to the north and east.”

Stressing that the 13th Amendment was insufficient since the provinces came under the control of the central government under a unitary constitution, he said: “The 13th Amendment is absolutely insufficient, since all decisions taken with regard to the money that has to be brought in, etc., is made by the centre and the governor, who is the central government’s nominee.”

Moreover, he explained that the original salient features of the 13th Amendment were no longer extant in the current Constitution. 

“Under the 13th Amendment, the government agent, district secretary, and Grama Sevaka were brought under the control of the provincial council, but by Act No.58 of 1992, Ranasinghe Premadasa took this away and handed it over to the central government. Therefore, what was originally in the 13th Amendment is no more, since they have taken away some of the more salient features of the amendment.”

In terms of the new constitution, “it all depends on the nature of the constitution that is being prepared,” he said, adding that former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s draft constitution of 2000 was fairly acceptable, “though not up to our expectations”. 

According to him, the council of regions mentioned in the 2000 draft could be the basis for a new constitution and much of this draft can be taken to prepare a new constitution. 

Meanwhile, attempts to reach Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya and Minister Herath for comment proved futile.⍐

Archdiocese of Los Angeles to pay $880M in sexual abuse settlement

Archdiocese of Los Angeles to pay $880M in sexual abuse settlement

The agreement, believed to be the largest single settlement of its kind by a Catholic archdiocese, will settle 1,353 claims of childhood sexual abuse.

By Kelsey Ables Updated October 17, 2024 WP

Los Angeles Archbishop José H. Gomez, center, during a Mass in Los Angeles in 2020.
“My hope is that this settlement will provide some measure of healing for what these men and
women have suffered,” he wrote in a letter dated Wednesday. (Damian Dovarganes/AP)

The Archdiocese of Los Angeles has agreed to pay $880 million to settle more than 1,300 claims of childhood sexual abuse. The sprawling agreement is believed to be the largest single child sexual abuse settlement with a Catholic archdiocese and comes after a state law provided a three-year window to revive past civil claims of sexual abuse involving minors.

Some of the claims date to the 1940s, and the acts are alleged to have been perpetrated by archdiocesan clergy, lay people and religious order priests and clergy from other dioceses who were serving in Los Angeles, a letter from Archbishop José H. Gomez said. The Archdiocese of Los Angeles is the largest Catholic diocese in the United States.

“I am sorry for every one of these incidents, from the bottom of my heart,” Gomez wrote in the letter. “My hope is that this settlement will provide some measure of healing for what these men and women have suffered.”

In a joint statement with an attorney for the archdiocese Wednesday, the Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel expressed appreciation for the archdiocese “acknowledging its failures that enabled and perpetuated the harm that came to these children” and said that, “while there is no amount of money that can replace what was taken from these 1353 brave individuals who have suffered in silence for decades, there is justice in accountability.”

After the window for reviving claims closed, the archdiocese and attorneys for the plaintiffs underwent mediation last fall to seek a resolution that would allow defendants to provide compensation to victims, while also allowing the archdiocese to continue operating, the statement said.

Gomez said in his letter that funding for the settlement will come from “reserves, investments, and loans, along with other Archdiocesan assets,” and not from donations.

The Catholic Church has been grappling for years with the history of sexual abuse in its institutions around the world, rattling its members, who total more than 1.3 billion, and taking a toll on its reputation.

Allegations of sexual abuse have come from attendees of Catholic institutions in numerous countries including Costa Rica,  Chile,  Italy,  Ireland, Australia and Canada.

Earlier this year, a Washington Post investigation found that for decades, Catholic priests, brothers and sisters sexually abused Native American children at remote U.S. boarding schools they were forced to attend.

In 2007, the same archdiocese in Los Angeles settled sexual abuse lawsuits involving more than 500 alleged victims for $660 million — the largest sexual abuse settlement by a diocese until this week. The new settlement brings the cumulative payout from the archdiocese to more than $1.5 billion.

The situation in California received renewed attention after the state passed a 2019 law that opened a three-year window in which cases were exempted from age limits and allowed alleged victims of sexual abuse to sue up to the age of 40. That window closed at the end of 2022. More than 3,000 lawsuits were filed against the Catholic Church in the state during the window. Facing an influx of suits, the dioceses of Oakland, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Rosa and San Diego filed for bankruptcy.

Responding to Wednesday’s news, Morgan A. Stewart, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said in the statement, “The massive amount of this settlement reflects the amount of grievous harm done to vulnerable children and the decades of neglect, complicity and cover-up by the Archdiocese.” He urged other institutions in the Catholic Church “to meet their responsibilities and take accountability.”

The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) called the settlement “a good start” but said in a statement that “much work remains to be done.”

“We fear and believe there are many more survivors out there who have not yet come forward,” said SNAP Board of Directors Treasurer Dan McNevin. “It is incumbent on Archbishop José H. Gomez to find a way to bring those lost souls in from the cold⍐.” 

Israel complicates election’s final stretch, an issue Democrats hoped would fade

 Israel complicates election’s final stretch, an issue Democrats hoped would fade

Benjamin Netanyahu’s escalating assaults in Gaza and Lebanon have become a growing vulnerability for Kamala Harris amid her bid for the presidency.

By John Hudson

, 

Yasmeen Abutaleb

, 

Mohamad El Chamaa

 and 

Missy Ryan

Updated October 16, 2024 

President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris hoped the ongoing violence in the Middle East might simmer below the surface in the final weeks of the presidential race, but fresh Israeli military offensives are making that virtually impossible, U.S. officials and campaign aides say. 

Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Sept. 27 in
New York. (Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has set the Gaza Strip ablaze with a renewed bombing campaign and launched a ground invasion into Lebanon alongside aerial strikes in Beirut aimed at annihilating the militant group Hezbollah. He is expected to order an imminent attack on Iran’s military facilities in response to its missile strike on Israel this month.

The rapid escalation has tied the Biden administration in knots, resulting in the United States first calling for an immediate cease-fire in Lebanon only to reverse that policy nine days later and openly endorse Israel’s ground offensive.

The whiplash has caused confusion and consternation among Washington’s European and Arab allies who are pushing for the United States to restrain its closest ally in the Middle East. But administration officials remain loath to pick a public fight at such a tenuous moment politically.

“They clearly want to avoid any public confrontation with Netanyahu over Lebanon or Gaza that could result in blowback from Israel’s supporters before the election,” said Frank Lowenstein, a Biden ally and former Middle East negotiator in the Obama administration.

“At the same time, they are sensitive to losing critical Arab American votes in key swing states if their rhetoric leans too far in Israel’s direction,” he added.

The administration has issued statements in response to recent incidents that have drawn international backlash, including Israel’s attacks on U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon; its deadly bombing of Gaza’s al-Aqsa hospital, which engulfed nearby tent camps in flames; and a U.N. report indicating no food has entered northern Gaza in nearly two weeks. Yet those remarks have been carefully calibrated to avoid portraying a sharp break with Netanyahu.

The latest opportunity to do so came Tuesday, when Israeli media published the contents of a confidential letter from Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin urging Israel to allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza or face potential restrictions on U.S. military assistance. Within hours of the letter’s disclosure, spokespeople for the White House and State Department clarified that it “was not meant to be taken as a threat” and that no action would be taken in the next 30 days — pushing any potential punitive action until after the election. They declined to say if weapons restrictions were even on the table.

This account of the Biden administration’s handling of ballooning violence in the Middle East during the election’s final weeks is based on interviews with more than two dozen officials from the United States, Europe and the Middle East as well as Harris’s campaign. The dynamic they conveyed is of an improvisational White House that has followed Israel’s lead into a widening regional war while only marginally influencing Netanyahu’s actions. Some spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss their observations.

The war’s spread has alarmed the Harris campaign, which sees the images of dead civilians as complicating her path to victory in key swing states with sizable Arab American and Muslim populations.

“It’s a huge concern. It comes down to people saying, ‘I can’t support anyone who supports a genocide,’” a person who advises the campaign said.

Israel denies that its military operations in Gaza constitute genocide.

Vice President Kamala Harris and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appear before
a meeting in Washington in July. (Julia Nikhinson/AP)

‘Look at our track record’

The Biden administration contends that critics underestimate the impact it has had in reducing the scale of Israel’s invasion into Lebanon, increasing the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza and preventing a full-scale war with Iran. Officials say they are constantly working to dissuade Netanyahu from bombing Beirut and scale back his planned counterattack on Iran, which some fear could include strikes on nuclear or oil facilities, a prospect that could upend the global economy.

“Look at our track record of intervening to get humanitarian assistance in,” State Department spokesman Matthew Miller told reporters Tuesday. “When we have seen the results not measure up to the standards that we expect, we have intervened with them.”

But according to the administration’s own assessment, the amount of aid delivered to Gaza has dropped by more than 50 percent since the spring. In Lebanon on Wednesday, Israeli airstrikes resumed near Beirut’s southern suburb, hitting what the Israeli military called an underground weapon storage facility used by Hezbollah. Other Israeli strikes in southern Lebanon hit government buildings in Nabatieh, killing at least six people, including the mayor.

Israeli officials say they will not kowtow to the United States about targets in Lebanon, where more than 1,700 people have been killed and 1.2 million displaced since fighting intensified in mid-September. “We will continue to hit Hezbollah mercilessly in all parts of Lebanon — also in Beirut,” Netanyahu said.

No final decision has been made about targets to strike in Iran, Israeli officials say, but an attack is expected in the coming days.

In Gaza, most U.S. officials concede the two sides will not reach a cease-fire-hostage deal by the end of the year. That process was bogged down amid demands from Hamas about prisoner exchanges and Israel on keeping its troops along the Gaza-Egypt border.

The dilemma has caused current and former officials to reflect on how Washington could have avoided the quagmire.

Andrew Miller, who recently stepped down as the State Department’s top official for Israeli-Palestinian issues, said the United States was too quick to accept Israel’s expanding operations without understanding their scope.

“What we did had the effect of endorsing Israel’s military campaign before understanding whether Israel had a viable exit strategy,” he said in an interview. “I don’t think there’s anyone in the administration who could say with a straight face Israel had a clearly defined end-state.”

Inside the Harris campaign, concerns are particularly acute in Michigan, home to one of the nation’s largest Arab American and Muslim populations, with about 300,000 people who claim ancestry from North Africa or the Middle East.

Polls show Harris and her Republican opponent, former president Donald Trump, effectively tied there and in other battleground states that will decide the election. Harris’s clearest path to victory is in the “Blue Wall” states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and she has few paths to the presidency without winning the Wolverine State, where she is holding five events in three days this week.

When Harris first entered the race, her advisers hoped the fact that she had distinguished herself from Biden by speaking more forcefully about Palestinian suffering would help win over a sizable segment of Arab American and Muslim voters who are angry over the administration’s support of Israel.

But winning their support has become more difficult as Israel’s military campaign has intensified with U.S. backing.

Israeli officials say the assaults are needed to prevent another Oct. 7, the day in 2023 that Hamas-led fighters killed 1,200 people in Israel and took more than 250 hostage. The American political calendar is not a factor in the sequencing of the war, an Israeli official told The Washington Post. “The timing of strikes is solely determined by operational considerations, nothing else,” the official said.

The botched cease-fire

Despite a year’s worth of failed efforts to end hostilities in Lebanon and Gaza, U.S. officials saw their last best opportunity during the U.N. General Assembly in New York late last month.

Biden’s envoy, Amos Hochstein, had been holding calls with Lebanese negotiators in Beirut into the early hours of the morning on Sept. 26 as he consulted with Israeli officials in New York on the language of a cease-fire statement.

Eventually, U.S. and French officials received enough positive signals from Israeli and Lebanese counterparts to release a joint U.S.-French statement calling for a 21-day cessation of hostilities. U.S. officials touted the statement to reporters as a “breakthrough.” The optimists in Biden’s inner circle thought a cease-fire in Lebanon could open a backdoor to one in Gaza, ending hostilities just before the election.

Diplomats discussed the details of a possible U.N. Security Council resolution, including semantics like whether to use the word “cease-fire” or “truce,” a Western diplomat said.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu instructed his armed forces to “continue fighting at full force” in remarks that embarrassed U.S. officials who leaned on the prime minister’s top aide, Ron Dermer, to issue a statement in support of the cease-fire discussions.

French and Lebanese officials believed the various sides were close to entering a truce while U.S. officials said they were still days away from implementing an agreement due to discrepancies, including rules for Hezbollah and Israeli troops movements.

Then on Sept. 27, a fleet of Israeli F-15s dropped dozens of bombs on a building in the southern suburbs of Beirut, killing Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah and his top aides. The attack eliminated one of Israel’s most ruthless foes, a dominant political and military figure in Lebanon for decades. It also killed any chance for the U.S.-France cease-fire proposal.

“It all went up into thin air,” the Western diplomat said.

Israeli officials said that Netanyahu was never interested in a cease-fire and that a miscommunication occurred between the White House and the prime minister’s office. U.S. officials say the prime minister changed his mind, either as a result of pressure from his right-wing cabinet or upon receiving actionable intelligence about Nasrallah’s whereabouts.

The next phase

Sensing an opportunity to build on the decapitation of Hezbollah’s leadership, Netanyahu authorized a ground invasion of Lebanon on Oct. 1 to destroy the infrastructure the group used to fire rockets into Israel.

In a televised address, Netanyahu said the people of Lebanon could oust Hezbollah or suffer the fate of Gaza, where more than 42,000 Palestinians have been killed, according to local health authorities. “You have an opportunity to save Lebanon before it falls into the abyss,” Netanyahu said.

Privately, administration officials were outraged and said Netanyahu’s threats risked uniting Lebanon’s fractured society against the invasion. “He’s an unbelievably flawed messenger,” a senior U.S. official said.

But Biden and his top advisers agreed with Netanyahu’s premise that the weakening of Hezbollah could be exploited to reshape Lebanon’s politics and appoint a new president. A limited incursion was backed by Blinken, Hochstein, Austin, Middle East coordinator Brett McGurk and White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan, said officials familiar with the matter.

But like with other Israeli promises, the mission expanded, including major bombardments of towns and villages involving civilian casualties that U.S. officials say they strongly oppose.

Analysts are skeptical that the lofty goals of the United States and Israel in Lebanon are achievable before Biden leaves office.

“I don’t think there’s enough time left to accomplish that,” said Andrew Miller, the former State Department official. “At the most, you could potentially see the appointment of a new president, but even that’s going to be extraordinarily difficult.⍐”